The odds that it is being infringed went down this week when, among other things, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision (.pdf) in which it held that the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms applies not only to the federal government but to state and local governments as well.

Because this isn’t a legal blog, I’m going to pass over the legal intricacies and arguments that the case involved (though they are fascinating) and go to the moral issue in question: Is it a good idea for people to have the right to own guns?

Of course, we are not talking about all people without exception. As the decision in this Supreme Court case as well as the previous one noted, lawmakers can reasonably bar felons and the mentally ill from owning guns. (Personally, I would change “felons” to “violent criminals,” due to the absurd extent to which federal law has started classifying things as felonies; I’d also shore up “mentally ill” to make sure that only those who pose a danger to themselves or others are intended, due to the tendencies to classify everything under the sun as a mental illness, but those are other issues.) The question is: Should ordinary, law-abiding, mentally stable individuals be allowed to own guns?

And by “guns” I mean “firearms that are in functional condition,” not “pieces of disassembled metal that could be taken out of a locked container and/or assembled and/or unlocked and/or loaded and so be turned into functional firearms in a few minutes time.” (Sorry for the verbal gymnastics, but that is the state of affairs to which opponents of gun rights have pushed things.)

So: Should ordinary people be allowed to own guns?

Guns are marvelous tools. That’s why we fight wars with them. On a smaller scale, we also defend ourselves with them, we hunt with them, obtain food with them, control dangerous predators like bears and mountain lions with them, control animal populations like deer that would otherwise suffer unless culled, signal the start of sporting events with them, and use them in marksmanship competitions.

The last two cases are atypical. Starter pistols are loaded with blanks or caps and are or are used in a deliberately non-lethal way. Similarly, marksmanship competitions are not the main use for which guns are intended.

The situations we are concerned with are those in which guns are aimed at their primary targets: animals or humans.

What about animals?

The Church acknowledges that animals do not have rights the way humans do. Consequently, it is never murder to kill an animal and we have the right to eat animals, use their skins, etc. Unnecessary cruelty toward animals is a sin, but this involves an abuse of human nature rather than a violation of an animal’s rights. Activities like hunting, obtaining food, eliminating predators that pose a danger to humans or livestock, and culling animal populations to keep them in balance are morally licit in principle.

Still, these considerations don’t go to the use of firearms that gun control advocates are most concerned about, so let’s look at the issue of using firearms against other humans.

What we are talking about, essentially, is war on the individual scale.

The Church views war as something that is always a tragedy, but it acknowledges that the use of warfare is mortally legitimate when a nation needs to protect its (or others’) interests and there is no less destructive practically way to do this.

In the same way, the Church recognizes an individual right of self defense. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor…. the one is intended, the other is not.”

Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful…. Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm [CCC 2263-2265].

So we have a right, and at times a duty, to use lethal force in defending life. Does that translate into a right to own guns?

Well, guns are remarkably good tools for administering lethal force—and by extension they are remarkably good tools for keeping aggressors at bay. They are also tremendous equalizers.

Put on your Father Brown hat for a moment and think like a criminal—a home invader. Whose home do you want to invade? One with a bunch of people in it, including at least one large adult male? Or a home with only one person in it, who happens to be smaller, female, and perhaps elderly? If you are a home invader, you stand a better chance at holding your own in the latter circumstance than the former, making it the logical (if monstrous) choice for you.

But suppose the little old lady has a gun! And goes to the range regularly! And has carefully thought through what she would do in the event of a home invasion!

Suddenly you’re on a much more equal footing with your potential victim—even if you, the home invader, yourself have a gun.

And, of course, criminals often do have guns. If the one attempting to victimize you has one, and if you have a right and/or duty to defend yourself against him (which the Church acknowledges you do) then that right entails the means you will need to perform the act of legitimate defense. In other words, it entails a right and/or duty to use a gun—unless you have some other means of effectively defending yourself against an attacker with a gun (e.g., maybe you’re Wonder Woman and can do bullets and bracelets).

Or suppose that your attacker doesn’t have a gun but that he’s just much more physically powerful, agile, and skilled at violence than you are. To exercise your right to or fulfill your duty to perform legitimate defense in such a situation, you need something to equalize matters, and a gun is a very good option. Perhaps the only one.

It would be wonderful if we lived in a world in which all weapons could be beaten into ploughshares and nobody would make individual war any more, but we’re not in that world, yet, and ordinary people still have that right and/or duty to defend themselves and others, using lethal force if necessary.

So there is a significant case to be made that ordinary, law-abiding, mentally-stable people ought to be able to own guns.

Of course, there are arguments against this—that having more guns around increases gun violence, that there would be gun accidents, etc.

Whatever happened to the early Christian mentality where they bore no arms and turned the other cheek. Christians of old never took up arms to fight against their prime oppressors of the day which were the Romans. Why do we feel that it is right and normal to be Christian and bear arms. Have we forgotten Jesus’s maxims to turn the other cheek? That he came not to bring a sword? These are some of the hardest, most difficult commands of Jesus. I refuse to believe that one can be a true Christian and advocate gun rights!

This blog article clearly describes our right and obligation for self-defense. As Mr. Atkin suggest, a gun is well suited for this purpose. I choose not to have loaded firearms in my house, but that is not to say it is (necessarily) illegal, immoral or un-Christian (Catholic) to do so. I do have large knives, axes, club like objects, chemicals which can maim and kill, nail guns, slings (like David’s), high temperature torches and other assorted objects which I could use for the purpose of self-defense. However, none of them would be as effective, or safe, as a gun for the purpose of self-defense. Indeed, I could exacerbate a break-in situation further as I attempt to bring these to my use; maybe I’d allow the intruder to do harm to myself or family as I fumbled using these objects. I might cause more harm. A gun is sounding pretty good now. Heck, even the Apostles carried defensive weapons with them when they were with Our Lord.

Posted by Jay on Tuesday, Jul, 13, 2010 9:55 PM (EST):

Your are forgetting the true purpose of the 2nd amendment, probably the
Government would like people to forget it. Sure
guns are great for hunting and self protection
But the main reason the founders in ludedthe 2nd amendment
Is for citizens to protect themselves against a tyrannical government
As it says in the constitution when the government becomes tyrannical it
Is the duty of the citizens to overthrow it

Posted by PAT on Sunday, Jul, 11, 2010 6:31 PM (EST):

We have every right to own a gun for our protection from criminals. Recently we had a home invasion and having a gun was better than having no defense at all.
But then, those that think citizens should have no guns, might want to experience this for themselves—it will change a mind real quick.

Posted by Red_Beard on Friday, Jul, 9, 2010 2:50 PM (EST):

So you believe that the right does not inhere in the individual. If you ask the government nicely, they may give you permission to have a gun if you give them a good reason like hunting. Otherwise, no guns.

I, on the other-hand, believe that people have rights simply because they are people. The rights inhere in the individual, not the government. I believe that liberty is important and any right should only be infringed upon when there is a conflict with a higher right.

Posted by Caro on Friday, Jul, 9, 2010 11:37 AM (EST):

I know a fair number of people who are serious hunters, many of whom own guns (though the majority of hunters I know are actually into bow hunting). I would not question that they ought to be able to own a rifle or shotgun. However, I do think that handguns should not be owned by private citizens. They are not useful for hunting, and in terms of self-defense, well, a small, often concealed weapon has no deterent effect whatsoever, since the criminal can’t see it. I also fully support licensing laws that require potential gun owners to take gun safety lessons.

Posted by Fuzzy on Monday, Jul, 5, 2010 1:53 AM (EST):

To see the logic behind gun ownership and the overall benefit to society (called “positive externalities” by economists), try this simple thought experiment: Why not require those who are anti-gun to post this on their front doors of their homes? Why not a sign that reads, “This house is a gun-free zone.”?

Obviously, nobody in his/her right mind would do so. Why not? Because it would make them a target for invaders. So, the positive externality is that by *me* owning a gun in my neighborhood, the home invader doesn’t know which houses *do* have guns and which *don’t.* Everyone benefits. Guns keep society safe.

Posted by Andy Lucy on Saturday, Jul, 3, 2010 11:51 PM (EST):

I worked as a 911 dispatcher for almost 10 years. Response times for hot calls, even in the small town where I worked, were on the order of 2-3 minutes. That may not seem like a long time… but when Joe Methhead is trying to remove your spleen through your left ear, a few seconds will seem a lifetime.

Yes, you can defend yourself with a Louisville slugger. However, what if ol’ Joe has managed to cobble together a zip gun? Or even if he has a knife? For someone who is knowledgeable about knife fighting, a knife is as deadly as a firearm inside of 21 feet. If someone wants to run the risk of getting gutted because they don’t like firearms… fine. It’s your life. But you have no right, neither legal nor moral, to tell me that I cannot use a more effective tool to defend myself and my family.

Posted by Thomas on Saturday, Jul, 3, 2010 11:17 PM (EST):

As for Scripture and Tradition I believe both will support a right to self-defense and defense of others.
If there is a right to self-defense it would be pretty meaningless w/o the MEANS to defend oneself.

In practical terms, criminals obviously have no problem breaking laws and providing themselves with guns illegally so “gun-control” laws only make the innocent easier targets for the wicked.

I know it is fun to make fun of the bumper-sticker slogans on the pro-gun side but there’s truth behind some, esp. “When seconds count, the police are minutes away.”
To take it a step further, what if the cops are actively against you? In an interview Former Sec. State Condoleeza Rice talked about her father’s involvement with the civil rights movement—after receiving threats from the Klan he & his friends sat out on the porch with their shotguns which worked to keep away the night riders. I doubt the same could be said for calling the white police chief and asking for increased patrols.

From a legal perspective, the right to bear arms is in our constitution. That means it can’t be infringed, period. Do I think that everyone should have a gun? No. Obviously, age limits and background checks are prudent. I don’t have anything against gun licenses, but only if there’s not a ridiculous amount of red tape involved (New York gun control laws, for example, are so fraught with unnecessary background checks, meetings, fees, etc. that they might as well have just outlawed guns). But the government outright outlawing weaponry is against the Constitution.

From a moral perspective, defense of self and others is completely moral, and is the reason that many people buy guns. Thus, I don’t really see any reason why people would have a problem with gun ownership. Gun owners aren’t shooting other people or wrecking property…in fact, I bet a lot of them don’t even use their guns outside of a shooting range (sometimes just revealing you have a gun is enough to deter a robber/rapist/etc.). They’re not doing anything immoral. So why should their owning a gun be a problem? I’m not comfortable around guns, granted, so I’ll probably never own one, but I don’t have problem with other people owning them. It’s their right as Americans.

Posted by Greg E on Friday, Jul, 2, 2010 2:32 PM (EST):

The 2nd amendment isn’t only for self defense at home, it’s also for defense against the government. Consider it an early version of the nuclear arms race, or mutual assured destructions. As long as the citizenry is armed, the government will never attempt to opress its citizens. Of course we have legal methods through the courts, but the courts can be stacked as well. As a last resort, if our own government became oppressive, we have a duty and a right to stand up against them. Hence we the people are guarenteed by the 2nd amendment that the government can never disarm us which means we remain a free nation.

Posted by Red_Beard on Friday, Jul, 2, 2010 2:20 PM (EST):

R.C.

That was an awesome post!

Posted by R.C. on Friday, Jul, 2, 2010 1:14 PM (EST):

In the comments here, I think there is an inadequate appreciation of how government acquires its authority; and thus, the relationship between the just authority of the government (which derives from the consent of the governed) and the just powers of the individuals governed.

In the United States, the government are our employees. We The People establish government in order to better organize the use of force to secure our rights.

This presupposes that we, as individuals, intrinsically have the right to use force to secure our rights. For the sake of doing so more efficiently and justly, we *delegate* some portion of that authority to our employees, the government. But, like any employer, the fact that we have delegated some authority to the government does not at all mean that we no longer have that authority, ourselves!

Examine the Tenth Amendment to the U.S.Constitution. It makes the principle quite clear: Just authority for governance of individuals resides initially in the individuals, but they delegate that authority to their state governments, and they and the state governments then delegate some smaller portion of that authority to the federal government. Thus, “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Any just authority we don’t bother delegating to government, we retain for ourselves; the authority we do delegate, we still possess as something intrinsic to our human dignity, but the government possesses only because we granted it to them.

Get that clear, and the issue of guns becomes easily resolved: If We The People do not have the just authority to defend our rights by use of force, neither does the government. If We The People do not have the just authority to use tools to enable said defense, neither does the government. They could not plausibly acquire from us any authority which we did not already possess. One cannot delegate authority, unless one has that authority to begin with.

On a principled (rather than practical) level, the question is not whether the government may take away the guns of the people. The question is whether the people decide to take away the guns of the government, and reserve the authority to use tools for defense of innocent persons solely to themselves, and not delegate it to their employees.

God grants rights to human beings as part of their intrinsic human dignity. Human beings delegate some portion of those rights (for not all of them are delegate-able) to their employees. Some of those employees are the government. That is the underlying principle.

It’s a shame this isn’t generally taught and understood more clearly.

Posted by Red_Beard on Friday, Jul, 2, 2010 11:00 AM (EST):

Iowander,

“The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I’m just not comfortable with where the NRA wants to draw it, and that often gets me labeled a gun-grabber in these kinds of discussions.”

I appreciate your reasonable tone. In most conversations where people are passionate, reason and courtesy are the first casualties.

I agree with you that we shouldn’t be able to drive to Walmart (the nation’s largest gun seller) and pick up a nuke. The line does need to be drawn somewhere, I don’t know where, and like you said, it is really hard to discuss without getting labeled and ignored.

The practical problem is how large the spectrum of guns are. If all we had where muskets and rifles, then a farmer is as good as a soldier and thus tyranny is held in check. Once you add smart bombs and fighter jets, it’s hard to deter that with a shotgun.

I don’t know the answer to this question. I do know that automatic weapons were used in a ridiculously small number of crimes so the rational for banning them was an emotional one and not a rational one. I’m also concerned about the small mags now required on handguns. Oh well.

One problem I have is that people like to ask the question “Why do you really need [insert thing I want to take from you here]?” right before they remove one of your rights.

It is an invalid question in regards to personal freedom. Freedoms aren’t guilty until proven innocent, they are innocent until proven guilty. You can’t take something away by asking “why do you need it?” You can only legitimately take it away by a very strong case against it.

Posted by Red_Beard on Friday, Jul, 2, 2010 10:46 AM (EST):

“No private guns! We are not in the jungle and I do not believe the only way you can defend your family is with a gun, if you insist on it, then I think that you have an agenda and you are obsessively and stubbornly pushing your own agenda on the general population. “

So, to continue the status quo is to “obsessively and stubbornly push your own agenda on the general population?” This is a very strange claim indeed.

Let’s be clear. The people trying to change things (the anti-gun group) are the ones who are pushing the agenda on the general population. The gun lobby is in a defensive position to not loose ground that they have always possessed.

Pushing an agenda isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but don’t try to paint those you disagree with (the gun lobby) as trying to take something away from you when in reality you are trying to take something away from them. Let’s be honest about our positions.

Posted by Red_Beard on Friday, Jul, 2, 2010 10:41 AM (EST):

“redbeard - dont bother. i’m outa here!”

oferdesade, as always, I utterly disagree with you but you are a lot of fun. :o)

Scalia knows his way around Blackstone like the Southern Baptists know the New Testament. The history of English common law in the Heller decision was so poor (if you missed the sarcasm above)that English historians submitted this brief to correct the record:

GUNS ARE WONDERFUL THINGS. THAT’S WHY WE FIGHT WARS WITH THEM.
priceless.
WHEN SECONDS COUNT, THE POLICE ARE ONLY MINUTES AWAY
once again, aa truly objective and transparent way to OBJECTIVELY open a discussion.
WHO IS THIS GUY AND WHO GAVE HIM HIS FIRST PEN?
redbeard - dont bother. i’m outa here!

Posted by Michele Szekely on Friday, Jul, 2, 2010 12:40 AM (EST):

No private guns! We are not in the jungle and I do not believe the only way you can defend your family is with a gun, if you insist on it, then I think that you have an agenda and you are obsessively and stubbornly pushing your own agenda on the general population. Be careful, guns can be a form of idolatry in disguise, temptations come at us from many angles and one of them is this American obsession with private guns, which has more to do with the “pride of owning a gun” than “defending the innocent”. It’s a sort of immature understanding of faith too, based on a fondness for your own private judgment rather than the common good. Our first responsibility is to bring the good news and testify, to bring peace, to bring “His peace”. Where in his teachings, in his passion, in the sermon on the mount do you see a justification for fire arms? Don’t you see the link between the violence in the society and the fact that this society permits armed individuals? Violence begets violence. Only the army and the police should be armed and I will vote accordingly! That’s my 2 cents.

Posted by shmikey on Thursday, Jul, 1, 2010 5:32 PM (EST):

‘The comments of some US Catholics who are pro-private weapons is significantly out of step with mainstream Catholic teaching. Some US Catholics speak as if this Amendment to the US Constitution is on a par with the Bible or Tradition.’
The obligation to self defense is in line with Catholic teaching on the right to life. We not only have a right, but an obligation to defend others from harm. If I fail as a father to protect my family from physical harm by an aggressor, I have fail in my duty to lay down my life for my family. I agree that this does not have to entail using firearms, but only a fool in our society would not recognize that we are facing enemies who may be armed and we have a right to use the means to defend life.

Posted by Joe on Thursday, Jul, 1, 2010 4:38 PM (EST):

The comments of some US Catholics who are pro-private weapons is significantly out of step with mainstream Catholic teaching. Some US Catholics speak as if this Amendment to the US Constitution is on a par with the Bible or Tradition.

Posted by StDom on Thursday, Jul, 1, 2010 1:53 PM (EST):

“A second point, which has long been a grave concern for the Holy See, in the framework of criminal justice and crime prevention, is the sale and possession of firearms. This issue is closely related to building peace and is a key component of a truly sustainable economic and social development. Clearly, there is a link between crime and trafficking in firearms that feeds terrorism at national and international levels. A reduction in the availability of firearms will facilitate the establishment of peace and security. It will also contribute to channel money spent on trafficking weapons, into programs for development.”

—

INTERVENTION BY THE HOLY SEE AT THE ELEVENTH UNITED NATIONS CONGRESS ON CRIME PREVENTION AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE (BANGKOK, 18-25 APRIL 2005)

“...care must be taken that the resistance does not exceed the bounds of mere defense and prevention; for then the defender would himself become an aggressor.” Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws Of England, Private Wrongs

As Catholics we have as much of a duty to take judo, get a dog, or move to a safer neighborhood.

——

Scalia and crew know more about the history of English common law than professors actually in England:

@Mike Melendez: Kind of makes you wonder why they decision was 5 to 4, doesn’t it Mike? This is what this great country has been reduced to…an obvious black and white case decided right down party lines (and Kennedy).

@Robert: Catholics ARE christians even though some christians may *think* or misunderstand otherwise.

Posted by Mike in KC, MO on Thursday, Jul, 1, 2010 11:57 AM (EST):

I have never believed in the simplistic idea that less firearms means much less crime.

But I have also never bought into the idea that lots of guns means automatically less crime either.

I do not have studies or researched facts to back this up, but I think it all has to do with culture and values. If your culture sees life as cheap, as something to be exploited, as something the powerful shape to their will and the weak suffer, then I believe you will have lots of violence and suffering, regardless of firearm availability. On the other hand, if your culture values human life as sacred (there will be exceptions both ways in every culture, of course, but we’re talking GENERALLY here) and does not view people as some kind of cheap resource to be exploited, then I believe you will have much less violence, even if there is a Kalashnikov in every closet.

I have always been around firearms my entire life, and never could understand what people had against them.

This is, I believe, one of the better explanations of it:
http://fredoneverything.net/Guncontrol.shtml
http://fredoneverything.net/yyNRA.shtml

Posted by Randy on Thursday, Jul, 1, 2010 11:18 AM (EST):

The photo accomanying this commentary says it all: this is what our nation stands for and embraces. Sad.

Posted by Robert on Thursday, Jul, 1, 2010 10:56 AM (EST):

Wow. This editorial and the comments that follow sure reveal a lot about the NCRegister’s readership. Looks like there are some differences between Catholics and Christians.

Posted by Mike Melendez on Thursday, Jul, 1, 2010 10:28 AM (EST):

I appreciate the moral argument Jimmy presents. But to me, the issue in America is very simple. I believe the Second Amendment is plain in its reading. The language is not legalistic.

The first part gives an origin of the right.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...”

The second part is the right itself.

“... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

I’ve heard the arguments that Minutemen are no longer needed having been replaced, for example, by the National Guard. But I don’t understand them. The National Guard is made up of the people and still needs to be well regulated, that is, people still need to know _how_ to bear arms. Beyond that, the arguments get ridiculously legalistic.

The right is clear and forthrightly stated. If someone wants to change it, they need to amend the Constitution. That is also clearly stated in the document and the process has been exercised a number of times. Anything else is simply illegal however well intentioned.

At least, so my thinking goes.

Posted by Iowander on Thursday, Jul, 1, 2010 10:19 AM (EST):

I support the right to keep and use arms for hunting and self-defense, but I think that the pro-gun lobby takes it too far to the extreme. I question whether it is necessary for individuals to own AK-47s, bazookas, and nuclear weapons. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I’m just not comfortable with where the NRA wants to draw it, and that often gets me labeled a gun-grabber in these kinds of discussions.

Posted by Andy Lucy on Thursday, Jul, 1, 2010 4:52 AM (EST):

I have a standing wager with anyone who advocates the abolition of firearm ownership. I offer them $50 if they will prominently post a 3’x5’ sign in their front yard, stating, “Weapons free household. No firearms on the premises.” No takers yet. They may be ignorant, but they aren’t stupid, apparently.

The firearm is a tool. Nothing more. As to the problem of proliferation of firearms… bad guys will obtain their weapons, one way or another. Zip guns are frighteningly easy to make, and there will always be a black market. Disarming the honest folk will only lead to their subjugation by those who are better armed than they.

Posted by Elijah on Thursday, Jul, 1, 2010 1:05 AM (EST):

I think that even those who have committed violent crimes should be allowed to own guns. If they can’t be trusted with guns then they shouldn’t be out of prison.

Posted by Angel on Wednesday, Jun, 30, 2010 10:46 PM (EST):

Gun control only disarms the innocent, period. Our founding fathers were fully aware of all the issues higlighted above and STILL chose that the people would know better than the government. Our government is for little to no power for a reason.

Whatever happened to the muscular Christian? The men and women of old not afraid to bear arms to protect their homes, villages or towns? Not afraid to go to Europe to liberate Belgium, because they fought for the safety of their own mothers and daughers, indeed, anyone’s innocents.

Posted by LRoy on Wednesday, Jun, 30, 2010 9:52 PM (EST):

I do not like guns. They make a lot of noise. Loud noises hurt my ears…literally.

The only gun (if I ever chose to own one) would be one of those tranquilizing babies that will just stop a person (or animal) cold, but not lethal.

Posted by Red_Beard on Wednesday, Jun, 30, 2010 9:44 PM (EST):

Which also nullifies the use as a defense against the over-reach of government because the government knows precisely where each legal gun in the country is and would have no difficulties in going after those people first.

Posted by Jess on Wednesday, Jun, 30, 2010 9:07 PM (EST):

I think the gun laws here in New Zealand are perfectly reasonable and a great compromise (gun law is a non-issue politically). Anyone has the right to own a gun so long as they are licensed to do so. A gun license is issued by our police force once the applicant (who must be 16 or over) has passed a gun safety test and had background check completed. There are further special endorsements you can get to be allowed to own semi and fully automatic weapons (not sure what that entails sorry). It sounds like a lot of red tape, but it’s pretty easy to get a gun license, the thing that makes the law work is that the person who wants to own the gun must prove they are fit to.

Although not from the South, I am from the West and must echo Micah Murphy’s comments. I would only emphasize the moral righteousness of those who take it upon themselves and risk their lives to defend themselves and, even more importantly, those who are too weak to do so. Those who consider themselves “better” because they don’t own a firearm are way off base. In many instances, they are merely giving in to their fears and displaying cowardice. They are unwilling to endanger themselves and willing and irresponsibly accept the victimization of others. Standing up to evil is not easy - but it is a serious moral imperative!

Posted by Red_Beard on Wednesday, Jun, 30, 2010 2:12 PM (EST):

A gun is a tool. That tool can be used morally or immorally.

The immoral use of the tool can legitimately be outlawed, but not the tool itself.

Another example is Pseudophedrine. It is used to make meth so now our whole country gets inferior decongestants. We never voted. We never had a say. Our right to use this particular drug was removed without our consent. I don’t know about you but when I’m sick and I can’t breath, it is little comfort to know that we have made things slightly more difficult for meth-heads. Personally, I prefer my right to breath.

Posted by Micah Murphy on Wednesday, Jun, 30, 2010 12:36 PM (EST):

I live in a part of the south where most of the men I know have guns. Even a female coworker of mine, who is a very friendly, polite, sanguine individual, has not only a gun but a concealed weapons permit! Many of the folks here use the gun for hunting (and that is a very legitimate purpose here; it’s big business in my state) or just the fun of target shooting. Many others have guns for the additional benefit of protection. The vast majority of violent crimes here occur between people involved with gangs or other illegal activities, such that the gun offenses really only happen within the context of the other crimes. I think these are all good reasons to have a gun, but certain precautions should be taken. However, I do get the sense that many gun owners resent government intervention on the issue because I think deep down they all feel the government may try to do them violence some day, and ridding them of their guns is the first step in increasing the government’s likelihood of success. There are strong anti-government sentiments here, not all of which are wrong with regard to our current federal government. It is good to keep those in power aware that the real power rests with the citizens, but is real power found down the barrel of a gun? I suppose only if the powers that be refused to follow election results and sent the military after their own citizens. Perhaps if a stronger, more peaceful way of keeping the government in check was proposed, we’d see more willingness to abide by gun control. Still, I don’t think the government has any right to make demands in this instance.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

The time period for commenting on this article has expired.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant pastor or seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith. Eventually, he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, “A Triumph and a Tragedy,” is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on “Catholic Answers Live.”